Justin Papazian

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal scheduled a Phase 3 Hearing for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan and approved a final Procedural Order.

A request by an adjacent landowner to join its appeals to the Phase 3 Hearing was denied due to the advanced stage of the proceedings and the need for proper notice.

The appellants, holding unsatisfied judgments against a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of their motion to compel payment from the lawyer's insurer (LawPRO).

The core issues were the interpretation of the insurance policy's aggregate limit for dishonest lawyer coverage and whether LawPRO reasonably expended funds on defence and investigation, thereby exhausting the limit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the $500,000 limit was an aggregate limit and that LawPRO's expenditures were reasonable, dismissing the appeals.

Following the dismissal of the Creditors' garnishment motions against LawPro, the parties could not agree on costs.

LawPro sought over $82,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the Creditors argued they were the successful parties because they recovered an indemnity payment after bringing the motions.

The court found LawPro's costs disproportionate and excessive, noting the Creditors acted reasonably in bringing the motions which prompted LawPro to discover an error and make a payment.

The court awarded LawPro $20,000 in costs.

The Creditors, 1770650 Ontario Inc. and 1062484 Ontario Inc., brought a motion under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine their entitlement to proceeds from a professional liability insurance policy issued by Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LawPro) to the Debtor, Paul McEnery, a disbarred lawyer.

The motion sought an order for LawPro to pay out policy proceeds to satisfy outstanding debts.

The issues were whether the $500,000 sublimit for dishonest acts was per claim or in aggregate, and whether LawPro had improperly eroded the policy limits through defence costs.

The court found the $500,000 sublimit was an aggregate limit and that LawPro had not eroded the policy limits, dismissing the Creditors' motion.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff bank to obtain possession of the defendant's property, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $88,000, citing the defendant's unreasonable conduct and frivolous motions.

The court acknowledged the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings but balanced this against the principles of proportionality and access to justice.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage and for possession of the defendant's property, as well as to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant raised various defences, including claims that the property was on unceded indigenous land and that he held unredeemed certificates of deposit.

The court found the indigenous land defence untenable as the property was not on a reserve, and the certificate of deposit claim was barred by the ultimate limitation period.

The court granted summary judgment for possession, dismissed the counterclaim as frivolous and vexatious, but declined to make a vexatious litigant order as it required a separate application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Transport Canada decision approving the respondent's application to place a private mooring buoy in Georgian Bay.

The applicant challenged the decision on grounds including lack of effective public notice, failure to consider the respondent's compliance record, reliance on inaccurate information, and internally incoherent reasoning regarding safety.

The Court found the applicant lacked personal standing but granted public interest standing.

On the merits, the Court found that Transport Canada reasonably concluded effective notice was given, appropriately considered the compliance record under the Act, did not rely on relevant inaccurate information, and provided coherent reasoning regarding navigational safety.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff sustained a brain injury after her bicycle struck an empty bollard housing on a municipal recreational trail.

She sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the municipality 100% liable, holding that leaving an unpainted, unlocked, and easily removable bollard housing exposed on the trail amounted to reckless disregard for the safety of cyclists.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence and found the accident caused the plaintiff's post-concussion syndrome, rendering her competitively unemployable in her previous field.

Damages for past and future income loss were awarded in the amount of $737,339.72.

The appellant was successful on an appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims Court and sought partial indemnity costs of $19,323.46.

The respondent argued for costs of $5,000 based on proportionality, noting the underlying claim was for $25,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle of proportionality, finding the appellant's claimed costs were higher than what an unsuccessful party might reasonably expect to pay.

The court fixed costs payable to the appellant at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against the respondent, his equal shareholder in a closely held corporation.

The appellant had sought damages under the oppression remedy (s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act) for the respondent's alleged misappropriation of corporate funds, which resulted in the appellant being held personally liable on a joint guarantee.

The Deputy Judge struck the claim, relying on the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, finding the wrongs were done to the corporation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an oppression action and a derivative action are not mutually exclusive, especially in closely held corporations, and that the appellant had disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment, arguing the trial judge exceeded the court's $25,000 monetary jurisdiction by finding the appellant owed the respondents $42,633.57 before setting off $21,094.72 owed to the appellant, resulting in a net judgment of $21,538.85.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that monetary limits restrict the amount recoverable by the final judgment, not the reasoning process or intermediate calculations used to arrive at that amount.

The net judgment was within the court's jurisdiction.